Appeal No. 2004-0111
Application No. 09/930,098
enables opening and closing of the valve without significantly
changing fluid volume within the valve” (Specification, page 3,
lines 1-4).
However, the examiner has observed that the displacement of
Thomas’ diaphragm results in a volume of the chamber remaining
substantially or largely constant due to the small gap which it
must move to seal, compared to the volume of the overall chamber.
(Examiner’s Answer, page 7, lines 3-17). The Appellants have
provided no argument to counter this position, other than to
assert that Thomas does not disclose such a means of “maintaining
constant volume, or reciprocal displacement structure.” (Appeal
Brief, page 5, lines 6-7).
First, we note that the present claim 26 does not require a
reciprocal (see-saw type) structure. Rather, it is written in
means-plus-function language, which is broader. 35 U.S.C. § 112,
paragraph 6, states that a claim limitation expressed in means-
plus-function language “shall be construed to cover the
corresponding structure…described in the specification and
equivalents thereof.” The specification notes that use of either
side of the armature to displace the compliant diaphragm enables
opening and closing of the valve without significantly changing
fluid volume within the valve. (Page 3, lines 1-4). This does not
require the reciprocal displacement structure argued by the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007